Not a ‘clear consensus’ but a ‘majority’ for a second referendum. Someone tell Scotland’s ‘Dumb and Dumber’

By Liz S

Andy Burnham’s response to Chris Law was actually a tad too ambiguous, but then that is always what you get with any HQ party at WM.

WGD did an excellent article yesterday on this topic too.

He argued that “We must not and cannot allow Burnham or any other anti-independence politician to shift the goalposts by insisting on a “consensus” instead of a majority“.

He also stated that “Note that again, as I pointed out in a previous post, the opponents of independence are conflating two very different things, the wish for independence and the wish for an independence referendum“.

The various UK governments and indeed all pro UK politicians are all unable and unwilling to address the question of how and when Scotland can have a (justified) second referendum.

So we then also get other politicians trying to also “shift the goalposts” to then make it less likely to happen, like for example Labour MP Brian Leishman’s stupid and undemocratic suggestion in that Scottish Labour should support a second independence referendum (indyref2) “on the condition that the SNP agree to a 25-year ban on a third referendum if the result is a ‘No’ vote”.

The big obstacle (and not the only obstacle) with that stupid suggestion being that since when did Labour HQ , and indeed since when did anyone at WM , ever care about or even listen to what “Scottish Labour” supports ?

Bernard Ponsonby , in an interview, managed to expose the ineptitude of the two wanabee candidates for the Labour (pretend) leadership in Scotland , when both Michael Marra and Joe Fagan failed to offer a credible and coherent solution to the Q of how they would define the route to a second Indyref ?

It was like a scene from Dumb and Dumber.

Apparently according to Marra “Labour would consider a further referendum only if independence became the “settled will of Scottish people”, while Fagan said” it would be “obvious” when independence represented the settled view of Scottish voters”.

Both failed miserably to state how their explanations would be able to be fairly and truly measured – so much so that Ponsonby both mocked and laughed at what was obviously a display of both of them floundering to give a straight and honest answer to this Q.

(That’s because they, as pro UK politicians, have always preferred not to give it any serious consideration and so then they do not have a cohesive response to this Q , as in the Q that will not go away, no matter how much they as pro UK politicians want it to).

SNP MSP David Linden said: “It’s clear that whoever takes over as Labour Party Scottish branch office manager will continue to have their fingers in their ears and ignore what voters have told them time and time again”.

One thing’s for sure in relation to a second Indy referendum ever happening , or rather it ever “being allowed to happen” by the powers that be who control the UK State, and that is that they, our political opponents on the NO side, will not play fair nor honestly.

So we , on the YES side and also the SNP as the Scottish government, should be forceful in resisting any way that our opponents try to somehow ‘game the system’ in them adopting certain rules and conditions that gives them an unfair advantage on the end result of a second Indy referendum.

So they alone should not get to decide how this will all play out , as we all know that in allowing them to do that , well that will then likely result in even more ambiguity and so will then also end up still being, as a Q, one that has not been honestly resolved nor concluded.

Unfortunately it seems real democracy for Scotland (and also for some other nations within the UK) is something else that is “not allowed” .

Indeed what does exist within the UK State for Scotland , Wales & NI, is us all being dictated to by the various autocratic UK governments at WM . (WM which is in England who, as a nation, now also has two No10’s , one in London and one in Manchester).

Also we have the same various UK governments holding more powers, more control and having far more access to the majority of the money within the UK State, which then means that only they are the ones who are always “allowed” to ever do what they want based on what they decide is needed.

Would any other civilised nation within the world tolerate that intolerable situation ?

(England would not , that’s for sure).

Liz S


Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “Not a ‘clear consensus’ but a ‘majority’ for a second referendum. Someone tell Scotland’s ‘Dumb and Dumber’”

  1. I am quite amazed that the Supposed ‘Scottish’ pages of the BBC website have been so very subdued in their reporting of the Labour leadership contest happening in Scotland (or indeed other media) , which as yet , as a leadership contest, has not been concluded.

    Yet given the circumstances that brought about this contest then it makes perfect sense really.

    What with Sarwar’s abject failure as the previous Labour leader here in Scotland together with him failing to win the Scottish election in May , which then saw him being rewarded (for failure) by the new Labour leader at HQ with him being awarded a Peerage and also given a job in the new Labour leader’s (Burnham’s) UK government.

    Of course we all know that whoever does win this contest will then be not actually ‘winning’ , but instead they will only be yet another one who is destined to drink from the poisoned chalice that is the Labour branch office manager’s position in Scotland.

    I believe the phrases “road to nowhere” or “on a hiding to nothing” are now both associated with Labour in any Holyrood elections ie. as far as their chance of having any significant success in Holyrood elections.

    Of course these phrases are even more apt with the possibility of having either Marra or Fagan supposedly ‘taking the helm’ with Labour here in Scotland.

    I think most people have become enlightened to the fact that there is no such thing as ‘Scottish Labour’ , as instead if you vote for Labour in Scotland’s in any Holyrood election you are then voting for Labour HQ.

    In other words if Labour in Scotland were to win any Holyrood election then it will be Labour HQ who will control and so dictate what policies and actions are (allowed to be) implemented here in Scotland by their Labour branch office in Scotland.

    The BBC play along with the ruse that Labour’s branch office here in Scotland have autonomy , as they, the BBC in Scotland, also provides a protective shield for Labour at both HQ and branch office level, that is whenever they , the BBC in Scotland become involved in (interfere in) Scottish politics.

    The fact that the BBC in Scotland seem somewhat disinterested in this current Labour leadership contest in Scotland (as other media also seem to be disinterested as well) then speaks volumes as to the lack of belief that they, the BBC (and other media) here have, in either of these candidates being able to change the political fortunes of Labour in Holyrood.

    Amen to that.

    Liz S

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.